Wood v Racing Queensland Ltd
[2010] QCAT 694
•19 November 2010
| CITATION: | Wood v Racing Queensland Ltd [2010] QCAT 694 |
| PARTIES: | Mr Justin Thomas Wood |
| v | |
| Racing Queensland Ltd |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | OCR253-10 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Occupational regulation matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 3 November 2010 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Richard Oliver, Senior Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 19 November 2010 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS MADE: | 1. The application is dismissed. 2. The penalty of a suspension for four (4) weeks is set aside. 3. The Applicant’s licence to ride is suspended for a period of three (3) weeks, such suspension to commence on 5 December 2010. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Australian Racing Rule 135(b) considered – where applicant failed to follow trainers instructions – whether all reasonable and permissible measures taken – penalty reduced by one week to take into account mitigating factors |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Justin Thomas Wood represented by Mr J Murdoch SC |
| RESPONDENT: | Racing Queensland represented by Mr D Aurish |
REASONS FOR DECISION
Justin Wood was the rider of Rightson in race 2, the Doomben Open Handicap over 1615 metres, on 11 September 2010. Rightson placed second in the race. At the conclusion of the race stewards charged Mr Wood with a breach of Australian Racing Rule 135(b) in that he failed to take all reasonable and permissible measures to ensure that Rightson was given full opportunity to win or to obtain the best possible place in the field.
As a consequence of the charge being laid and proved to the satisfaction of stewards, Mr Wood’s license to ride was suspended for a period of four weeks.
Mr Wood appealed to the First Level Appeals committee and on 6 October 2010 the appeal was dismissed.
The particulars of the charge were as follows:
i) That after receiving specific instructions from trainer Barry Baldwin to position Rightson forward with a view to be positioned to the outside of the likely leader Poor Judge, and after Rightson began on terms with the main body of the field and an opportunity existed to comply with his instructions, he elected to restrain Rightson in an endeavour to take a position behind Rebounded;
ii) From leaving the 1,300 metres until approaching the 1,000 metres when Rightson was travelling well in a 3 wide position he failed to take an opportunity to follow Adavale Hornet forward when the pace was slow and instead restrained Rightson to a trailing position behind Rebounded.
After considering the evidence, the stewards formed the opinion that Mr Wood’s riding of Rightson during the first 600 metres of the event was not in accordance with specific instructions given to him by Mr Baldwin, the trainer, and this denied Rightson the opportunity to win or obtain the best possible place in the field. Australian Racing Rule 135 provides:
a)Every horse shall be run on its merits.
b)The rider of every horse should take all reasonable and permissible measures through the race to ensure that his horse is given full opportunity to win or to obtain the best possible place in the field.
c)Any person who in the opinion of the Stewards has breached, or was a party to breaching, any portion of this Rule may be penalised, and the horse concerned may be disqualified.
Stewards held the inquiry into Mr Wood’s ride because it was apparent to them that he did not ride the horse to it’s ability particularly at the commencement of the race. This was confirmed during the inquiry when it became clear that specific instructions were given to Mr Wood by Mr Baldwin that he should stay close to Poor Judge, the ultimate winner, for the whole of the race.
It is necessary to have regard to Mr Baldwin’s evidence from the transcript of the inquiry. Mr Baldwin knew that Poor Judge was the horse to beat in the race. The only horse in the field that could take on Poor Judge effectively, was Rightson.
Mr Baldwin had planned the race by watching Poor Judge’s earlier races and knew the form of the other competitors. He also knew he could take advantage of Mr Wood’s beneficial weight advantage of 3kg because he was an apprentice rider. In racing terminology he was a 3kg claiming apprentice. Mr Wood was only allocated the ride the night before and had not ridden the horse previously. In circumstances where he had not ridden the horse either in a race or track work, the trainer’s instructions were very important. Mr Baldwin’s knowledge of the race tactics to be employed can be gleaned from the transcript of the inquiry where he said:
“And the moment he went forward, Chris was going (inaudible) because Chris wasn’t going to let you lead. And it’s just – it’s just experience. And we had worked it out exactly as it turned out. It is one of those times it does happen, and this is why I think apprentices have got to do what the trainers (inaudible). I don’t – I’m not blaming the boy for ---
MR AURSICH: So you do you think apprentice Wood was clear on your instructions to sit outside of Poor Judge?
MR BALDWIN: Yeah. I said, “That’s the ideal position I’d like to see him” – I said because – you know, he said something when he first walked about, “I’ll get one back off” – I said, “No, no.” I said, “I want him” – I said – the only thing I (inaudible) I said, “Don’t dig him up too much because he will pull if you dig him up too much.” That’s the only thing I did say to him that maybe he got misled. But my argument is: he’s 3 wide there; he might as well keep on going forward.
What was the sense of going back further there when they are walking? That’s what my argument is. That is what we worked – we worked out the race perfectly. It was one of those times it worked out perfectly, and we knew that Many Radecker was never going to lead. The horse – she – the last time she pulled its head off to get in behind. We knew all this. We done the videos. It’s not just putting the horse in the race and saying it will win. You go back and look at the opposition, especially in a 7-horse race, and we had worked it out perfectly.”[1]
[1] Transcript page 10 line 50.
In a subsequent resumption of the inquiry, Mr Baldwin reinforced to the stewards his instructions, and said that he made sure that Mr Wood was clear on the instructions of how to ride Rightson.[2]
[2] Transcript page 18 and 19.
[10] There is no real contest as to the precision of the instructions given to Mr Wood by the trainer. His job was to move up to Poor Judge as quickly as possible and stay with him for the entirety of the race.
[11] It is clear from the film of the race, and it is accepted by Mr Wood, that he did not comply with the instructions given to him by Mr Baldwin. A complicating factor in the instructions was the advice that the horse was a little sensitive to pressure. This is accepted by Mr Baldwin and to quote his evidence:
“This horse doesn’t like being bottled up. Just don’t dig him out too much, but I’d like to see him sit outside the leader”. Which was always going to be, in my opinion, the winner. We spent half an hour on the form of the race. We knew everything. Justin said he thought that Pat Duff’s (Rebounder) horse would go forward.”
[12] In Mr Wood’s evidence to the inquiry he accepted that Poor Judge was always going to go forward and he formed the opinion that without “stoking the horse up” Rightson was never going to get there. He was thinking about what happened to the previous jockey when the horse got away when Jimmy “did stay him up”.[3] Mr Wood was concerned that if he did “give him a dig” and he got to the front he would not be able to stop him and inevitably he would tire at the end of the race.
[3] Transcript page 5 line 60.
[13] The caution not to “dig him up too much” was repeated by Mr Baldwin and the consequences of that is the horse might “pull”.
[14] Mr Wood’s explanation for the horse’s loss of position at the commencement of the race is that the horse did not react out of the barrier as he had expected. He said whilst watching the film in the inquiry:
“Yes, sir. As you can see, I don’t give the horse much of a dig out of the gates but I just let him roll forward. I had a horse improving to my outside. I gave him a little bit of a pump probably just before we were hitting that first turn just to try and kick him up forward but he never really went forward.
That horse was in front ended up (inaudible) 2 or 3 deep and by the time we got around the turn and it was positioned 3 deep, I was directly behind it. I would have had to pull out 4 deep just after that turn and go around the whole field to get up next to Poor Judge. But instead I just opted to come back a length and get in.”[4]
[4] Transcript page 7 line 60.
[15] Further on in the transcript, Mr Wood said this:
“I gave the horse the bit without actually like giving it a dig. Like, as I said, if you can play in slow motion from about here, I was having a look because I thought Mandy might take a sit in behind Poor Judge. About here you can see me shuffling the horse along – there – and it’s not going anywhere, sir. Then the horse to my outside crosses me and leaves me nowhere to go so I would have to on the point of the turn pull out 4 deep to go around.”[5]
[5] Transcript page 9 line 50.
[16] In addition to that, Mr Wood said:
“I didn’t begin as well as I thought, and as I was sliding forward and that there was probably 2 or 3 horses in front of me. The way it was going to look going into that first turn was I was going to be – Rebounded was going to be outside Poor Judge and I was going to be just outside 3 deep of Rebounded. But Rebounded ended up coming back more. Regrettably I probably let him role and to have taken a hold at Poor Judge. I definitely – you know, as a 3 – kg apprentice I’m still learning. I hope it is forgivable by Mr Baldwin I (inaudible) I think having a feel for it now and knowing that – I think my hands didn’t – sort of be a little bit kinder than – I thought he would travel a bit more than I expected.”
[17] At all times, when coming out of the gate, Mr Wood said he was conscious of the instruction “don’t overdo it”. Mr Murdoch SC in his submissions placed reliance on two matters firstly, that Poor Judge was the superior horse. He described him as a “quality horse” as opposed to Rightson being a “good horse”, he had won in the recent Melbourne spring carnival in a group 1 race. The second matter emphasized was Mr Wood’s inexperience as a “3kg claiming apprentice”.
[18] In respect of the first point, it may well be the case that Poor Judge was always going to win the race because it is a quality horse, however it was Mr Wood’s responsibility, not having ridden Rightson before, to adhere to the instructions given to him because it was those instructions, if followed, which would have given Rightson the best possible chance of taking on Poor Judge.
[19] The troubling aspect of the case for Mr Wood, when viewing the film with the assistance of both Mr Murdoch, Mr Wood and Mr Aurish, who appeared for the respondent, is that it is clear that when the gates open Mr Wood did not ensure that Rightson took up a position in the field consistent with his instructions. Accepting that he had an expectation that Rightson would have been a bit more lively coming out of the barrier, as soon as Mr Wood realized that he did not, it was his responsibility as the rider, to follow his instructions and move the horse on even if it meant “giving him a dig”. Mr Wood knew that Poor Judge was a quality horse and he would have to move Rightson on to position him in the field as instructed.
[20] Again, it seems from the film that Mr Wood made very little attempt to position his horse so that he kept in touch with Poor Judge. The shuffling Mr Wood describes, and which is barely evident on the film, was clearly not having an impact.
[21] With respect to Mr Wood’s inexperience, I note from the schedule of rides[6] that up until September 2010, he had ridden over 750 races. This may not be many in the lifetime of a jockey, but he must certainly have had sufficient experience by the time he got to this race to realize that if Rightson did not come out of the gate as expected, it was his job to take the horse in hand and do whatever was necessary to ensure it took up the position in the field as instructed. By not doing so, he permitted Rebounded to move into the position he should have been in.
[6] Exhibit 1.
[22] The stewards were also critical of his ride between the 1,300 metres and the 1,000 metres. It is suggested that Mr Wood failed to take advantage of an opportunity to follow Adavale Hornet forward when the pace was slow and instead held Rightson back trailing to a position behind Rebounded. I have looked at the film with both the applicant and Mr Aurish. I have since looked at the film on numerous occasions and it is clear that the pace of the field did certainly slow but this did not seem to put Rightson at a disadvantage because coming into the home turn, Rightson appeared to have plenty of energy for the gallop to the finishing line.
[23] I note also that Mr Baldwin was not particularly critical of this aspect of the ride. It also seems to me, that Mr Wood, having lost the advantage at the commencement of the race then had to make his own judgement as to the best method of getting Rightson home in the most advantageous position.
[24] I have been referred to a number of previous decisions by Mr Murdoch. They include Lewis v Queensland Harness Racing Board[7] which identifies the difficulty in applying this rule. For the rule to be invoked, the:
“Circumstances or measures taken by the driver must make it obvious to any reasonably informed person watching the race that the horse has been denied the opportunity to win or obtain the best possible place and that the driver has seriously fallen short of a reasonable standard.”
[7] [2007] QRAT 8.
[25] A similar consideration were adopted in Radecker v Queensland Racing[8] and Queensland Racing Ltd v Ganderton[9] in which the statement of Mr Hughes QC was adopted:
“The task of administering this rule is not always easy. One must keep it clearly in mind that on its true interpretation it is not designed to punish a jockey unless on the whole of the evidence in the case the Tribunal is considering a charge under the rule is comfortably satisfied that the person charged was guilty of conduct and that all the relevant circumstances fell below the level of objective judgement reasonably to be expected of a jockey in the position of the person charged in relation to the particular race.”
[8] [2008] QRAT 4.
[9] [2010] QCAT 348.
[26] It is always difficult in these cases to identify that line where the jockey makes an error of judgement as opposed to not taking all reasonable and permissible measures. As has been pointed out, one must consider all of the circumstances that prevailed in the particular race. Here, quite obviously, the applicant’s experience as an apprentice jockey is of relevance. However because of that inexperience, the instructions given to him by the trainer take on a greater importance because he does not necessarily have the experience to make split second decisions during the course of the race. However, having said that he knows, as a jockey, he must work in tune with the animal he is riding and take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the animal is responding to his signals whether it is through his hands, legs, a light touch or, as has been referred to, a “dig”. He also has to be mindful of the caution, but in circumstances where the horse is clearly not responding as expected, it is his job to ensure that the horse does so.
[27] As was said in Ganderton, in considering this matter afresh[10] the experience and the knowledge of the stewards cannot be ignored. They see numerous races and are well versed in looking for signs that a horse is not being ridden with the vigour that is expected in the circumstances of the particular race. In this case, I find myself in agreement with the stewards about Mr Wood’s conduct at the commencement of the race but I am not satisfied that he, having lost that initial advantage, can be criticised for the manner in which he rode the rest of the race.
[10] QCAT Act section 20.
[28] The charge contains two particulars of the breach of AR135(b). Only one of these particulars has been made out.
[29] With respect to penalty, I am urged by the respondent that the penalty imposed is the minimum for a jockey of Mr Wood’s experience. The list of comparative penalties sent to the Tribunal by the respondent, for which it is appreciative, does support this view. For an apprentice jockey, they range from four weeks[11] to six weeks[12] with some where the penalty has not been particularised.
[11] Bogenhuber.
[12] Turpin.
[30] I am urged by Mr Murdoch to reduce the penalty irrespective of whether the review is successful or not to take into account the significant financial impact of a four week suspension, his lack of experience and the blot this will have on his future career as a rider.
[31] In the circumstances I am of the opinion that a reduction to three weeks is appropriate. In doing so, I take into account Mr Baldwin’s specific instructions not to over do it. This has lead to some initial confusion on the part of Mr Wood particularly as the gates open. I also take into account that only one of the particulars have been made out.
[32] Mr Wood is at the commencement of his career as a jockey, and having regard to his past rides and wins he has a promising career and this is his first serious breach of the Australian Racing Rules. I also take into account that both Mr Baldwin and Mr Ryan the master of Mr Wood were supportive of him in the stewards inquiry.
[33] Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal is that the appeal is dismissed and the penalty is reduced to a suspension of three weeks such a suspension to commence on 6 December 2010.
0